144
PARTISAN REVIEW
we think ours is the right understanding, that our customs and mores
are correctness itself; everything outside the magic circle is viewed as
uncouth, evil, subhuman. "Mankind stops at the frontiers of the tribe,
of the linguistic group, and sometimes even of the village, to the extent
that a great many of the people called primitive call themselves by a
name which means 'men' .... " This may go as far as designating
outsiders as apparitions.
Our own perspective is distorted comparably-thus the ongoing
extermination of the world's primitive cultures. And in the face of this
ugly fact what is the value of anthropological research per se?
Wouldn't direct efforts at protecting these peoples be preferable-say
by making petitions, protesting to the governments concerned as well
as
to
the U.N., devising programs for their welfare? A lost cause? Levi–
Strauss tends
to
be pessimistic.
The extinction of many of the world's so-called primitive peoples
is practically inevitable.
In
Brazil alone, from 1900
to
1950, over ninety
tribes were wiped out. Slaughter of the South American Indians goes
on even now. But is this an anthropological tragedy? Sometimes Levi–
Strauss's concern seems misdirected, as when he assures us that
anthropology shouldn't lose heart over the partial extinction of its
subject matter, since it can compensate by making more efficient use of
what is left. Not scientific concern but outrage on a human level
should be our response
to
the murderous destruction of native societies.
That Levi-Strauss doesn't completely despair over this dwindling
of material isn't surprising. He has often been criticized, rightly or
wrongly, for erecting grand theories on the basis of few examples
drawn from observing even fewer cultures.
In
this he is contrasted with
American scientists, who tend
to
downplay fancy theorizing in favor of
data gathering and statistics. By their standards his eccentric research
methods are unscientific. But though his critics accuse him of selecting
data to fit preconceived formulations , there is at least an element of this
in all science, and novelty of approach is easily mistaken for a lapse in
scientific scruples.
As for Levi-Strauss (who calls for an "epistemological criticism"
of the sciences), while he seeks
to
establish and define the scientific
basis of his discipline, he does not claim for anthropology the status of
a "hard science" in the sense of physics or biology. These latter so
dominate the field as to be seen as defining types to which anything
wishing to designate itself as science must come to terms. But may there
not be other valid forms of science, differing from physics and the other
hard sciences not only in subject matter, but in their primary epistemo-
